OVER THE LAST few weeks, I mentioned the challenges we could face with power-sharing as a new political system; nonetheless, posing challenges should not imply that I oppose other political forms because I do not; I just believe that we need to flesh out something that is novel to this country, to ensure its benefits accrue to all.
Many parts of the developing world are guilty of introducing new ideas without doing the appropriate homework on their efficacy in a new context. As someone said, let us develop the courage to do what we believe and do it; except that when we do it, the evidence supports the line of action, to enable all to become its beneficiaries.
There are people who have an interest in sincerely wanting to advance this cause. I suspect they want to pursue this direction because, in their view, the current political system is a failure.
Nonetheless, as these advocates are quite resolute that power-sharing is the answer, that is, it is the treatment for whatever is ailing this dear land of Guyana, could they also not provide us with some sense of their diagnostic evidence, that demands the kind of treatment that they prescribe?
And I do not want the posing of this question to construe the feeling that I am against power- sharing or any other similar terms in its taxonomy. I am not mindful of change, but I want to see evidence that all would benefit, prior to making definitive conclusions. And to be sure, there are other lines of thinking, besides power-sharing.

Quote: ‘…I am not suggesting that the idea of using public policies to promote interethnic cooperation will work for Guyana; we do not know; in the same way, we do not know whether power-sharing would work’

For instance, we could juxtapose to this power-sharing line the use of public policies to promote inter-ethnic cooperation; Horowitz spoke about the possibility of promoting inter-ethnic cooperation through public policies; thus, in theory, we can talk about nation-building policies to advance the cause of conflict management; at least, we can try. But to do justice to this line of thinking, we may need to review some literature on economic development and ethnic diversity, if only to see how all the ethnic groups would fare in the situation.
Easterly and Levine, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (1997) in writing about Africa’s growth tragedies, noted that ethnically diverse countries have lower per capita economic growth rates than homogenous countries. And there are many instances where ethnic diversity leads to subpar outcomes; for instance, Peruvian microcredit groups have greater loan default rates when their members come from diverse cultures; and even those U.S. municipalities, with diverse racial groupings, command relatively minimum funding for public goods and services.
How could we explain these negative patterns emanating from ethnic diversity? Could it be the case that we need public policies that could promote ethnic cooperation, where all are beneficiaries? Miguel in World Politics (2004) came up with two explanations for these negative patterns. The first he refers to as ‘taste explanations’; where he notes that people from different cultural backgrounds have preferences for different types of public goods and services. For instance, some may prefer to have roads, while others may choose constructing schools. Clearly, then, with such distinctly different choices, there would be little agreement, resulting in less funding for unalike neighbourhoods.
And Alesina and La Ferrara in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (2000) found that people, out of force of habit, do not regularly cross ‘ethnic’  lines, and for this reason, we have meager outcomes/benefits in far removed neighborhoods; Vigdor in the Review of Economics and Statistics (2000) pointed out that people generally prefer to support projects that would benefit their own ethnic group. Can you imagine people in government aggressively pushing their varied sectional interests? Would this scenario not create political gridlock?
Miguel’s second explanation has to do with community consent, which it can use to make certain things happen; nonetheless, it is problematic to make this happen among ethnic groups if they have subpar interactions, that is, if there is an ethnic divide. For this reason, public policies inducing information sharing, increasing interactions, and harmonization across ethnic lines will remove these negatives; and this would be an example of community approval at work; and in this way and make all beneficiaries.
And power-sharing continues to titillate the imaginations of some people as a possible policy measure for providing some representation to ethnic groups in government, and offering some influence over policy formulation to benefit all; thus, addressing ethnic divisions.
Nonetheless, Spears (2002) among others, concluded that power sharing was unable to achieve conflict resolution, particularly in Africa; thus, for them, while power-sharing can create a political space for different ethnic groups, simultaneously, it creates a permanent space for the ethnic divide; another challenge for power-sharing.
Let us look at another option. Miguel showed how governments’ policies impacted inter-ethnic cooperation in rural Western Kenya and rural Western Tanzania, both with similar history, geography, and colonial legacy. Yet in the postcolonial era, both countries pursued different ethnic policies on language, educational curriculum, and local institutional reform. Miguel found that Tanzania’s nation-building policies enabled the ethnically-diverse groups to gain considerable funds for local public goods and services; whereas the rural Kenyan neighborhoods did not. There was greater interethnic cooperation in Rural Western Tanzania than in rural Western Kenya.
I am not suggesting that the idea of using public policies to promote interethnic cooperation will work for Guyana; we do not know; in the same way, we do not know whether power-sharing would work. Nonetheless, we need to review the evidence of the political efficacy of several options, including the existing system. And the trust building process, a big factor in any kind of governance, continues apace; nonetheless, we now may need to boost the tempo.